Conventional mobile networks, including those conforming to 4th Generation (4G) standards, such as the Long Term Evolution (LTE) standards defined by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) are designed to provide wireless connections to mobile devices. Each mobile device connected to the network consumes resources whether it is active or not. To control inter-device interference, networks can impose power management on connected devices.
UE power management typically makes use of fixed or isolated power management schemes. For example, power management is often performed on a UE-by-UE basis. UE-by-UE power management schemes do not scale well. An individual network access point (AP) is expected to support an increasingly large number of connected devices as increasing numbers of machine-to-machine (M2M) devices, also referred to as Machine Type Communications (MTC) devices, are brought online.
Conventional mobile network designs treat all mobile devices as largely individual devices with unique needs and requirements. The network resources allocated to each device are typically over-provisioned so that the network can accommodate a variety of different scenarios for each device. These scenarios include highly variable mobility for each device and an unpredictable transmission schedule for both uplink and downlink transmissions. This model is based on supporting mobile UEs, each of which is independent of the other UEs and is unpredictably mobile. In contrast to conventional UEs, for which networks have typically been designed, entire classes of MTC devices may have very consistent mobility and transmission profiles. As the number of MTC devices connected to a single AP increases, the ability of a network to perform per-UE tailored power management will come under strain.
Accordingly, there is a need for a more flexible power management scheme that can adapt to changing network needs and increasing numbers of UEs and MTC devices connected to the network.
This background information is provided to reveal information believed by the applicant to be of possible relevance to the present invention. No admission is necessarily intended, nor should be construed, that any of the preceding information constitutes prior art against the present invention.